Cenk to Van Hollen: "I thought we elected a Democratic president."

[Faryn Balyncd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHr3nMG6Y4


Will spineless politicians destroy the Democratic majority?




:kick:

[Nite Owl]

1. Sometimes I get the feeling

they don't want it.

[KamaAina]

2. We did.

But I thought we elected at least a moderately progressive Dem president. :(

[elleng]

14. We did.

[leftstreet]

3. The Democrats can't WAIT to be in the minority

Less stress, no pressure, blame the other guys

Both parties have been doing this for years and years

[FiveGoodMen]

4. But they'll still be glad to take your campaign contributions

You go broke.

They tear a hole in the social safety net even if they win.

[davidwparker]

7. Right. The Dems will still get to eat in the finest

restaurants. In the minority, they just have to eat closer to the kitchen. Outside of that, it the same old perks and insider club.

This is why I'm getting really close to want them ALL out. If you are an incumbent, you need to go. Be primaried or defeated. Just go.

[Raster]

18. There may be two political parties in Washington, D.C.

However, they are both fed by the same hand at the same trough.

[davidwparker]

22. that, too

[Winterblues]

21. The perks of the Majority are very appealing.

When you are the Chair of an important committee, you are VERY Powerful..I think the problem is Democrats have always been re-active instead of Pro-active. Basically always behind the eight ball.

[jtrockville]

5. I really wish we could oust Van Hollen here in MD's 8th.

[elleng]

6. Why would you like to do that, rockville?

[jtrockville]

9. He doesn't vote the way I'd like on many important issues.

It's gotten to the point where I don't even write or call him anymore, because I can practically recite his stock reply word-for-word.

He's no Blanche Lincoln, that's for sure. But I'd like a progressive in the seat that represents me.

[elleng]

8. Did anyone here understand what he was saying, that is,

that there will be a number of things presented? Think its a good idea for him to state what his 'vote' would be on a 'package' at this point?

[jtrockville]

10. I think some things should be "off the table".

Why can't he say he's NOT in favor of cutting social security benefits under any circumstaces because the program's outlook doesn't warrant any cuts?

[elleng]

11. I think he said that as far as he could,

but as the issue won't be presented in a way to enable that, he couldn't say how he would vote about the whole package.

[jtrockville]

12. I disagree. He should have flat-out said he would vote NO on SS cuts.

regardless of what else was in the package. IMO, there's no reason to sacrifice benefits of a solvent program that we've paid in to. None.

Instead, he indicated that he'd have to consider the whole package, even if the package has SS cuts. Which is why I'll vote for someone else to represent me every chance I get. I didn't vote for him last time, and won't vote for him this time. He simply doesn't represent my interests to my satisfaction.

[elleng]

13. I do understand what you're saying, rockville,

but he's in a leadership position and does have to consider effect of his actions on all issues.

They established Commission hoping/thinking they might be able to get a handle on our long-term problems, and it can only work with broad concensus.

[jtrockville]

15. True, but as Cenk pointed out: SS is not a long-term problem.

I would have liked Van Hollen to acknowledge that, especially since he is in a leadership position. Isn't that what leadership is all about?

[elleng]

16. Yes, it is, you are correct.

However, the Commission was tasked with addressing perceived problems, SS among them.

[jtrockville]

17. They're tasked with balancing the budget, not perceptions.

SS does not contribute to the budget deficit. Entitlement programs where revenues can't meet expenditures are Medicare and Medicaid, not SS. I'd be able to respect Van Hollen as a leader if he'd stand up and say that. But given the chance, he didn't.

From the executive order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform

The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. The magnitude and timing of the policy measures necessary to achieve this goal are subject to considerable uncertainty and will depend on the evolution of the economy. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

Incidentally, the last email I sent (and probably will ever send) to Van Hollen was regarding his refusal to support a public option (which would have reduced the Medicare/Medicaid gap).

[glitch]

20. Well said. nt

[Skittles]

19. "addressing perceived problems"

:rofl: